Preparing High Quality Research Proposals For ACEI

1
Preparing High Quality Research Proposals For
ACEI

• Dr. Michael F. Kelley
• Arizona State University West
• Dr. Linda Bennett
• University of Missouri-Columbia
• Dr. Lin Moore
• Texas Womans University
• Presented at the ACEI Annual Study Conference,
  San Diego, CA. April 5, 2002.

2
Presentation Outline

• Review the proposal submission process.
• Discuss the proposal evaluation process.
• Review the proposal evaluation criteria.
• Highlight the proposal decision factors.

• Discuss important factors to include in your
  proposal.
• Highlight important presentation features once
  your proposal has been accepted.
• Audience questions.

3
Proposal Submission Process

• Review the call for proposals and the submission
  deadline (Phoenix, 2003 deadline is June 1,
  2002).
• Highlight how your proposal addresses the
  conference theme/sub-topics, and emphasis areas
  as outlined in the call for proposals.
• Follow all items listed in the submission
  requirements (paper copy, disk copy, 3
  single-spaced, type-written pages that address
  the 7 proposal elements, and your desired
  presentation format).

4
Proposal Evaluation Process

• Each proposal is submitted to ACEI headquarters
  (HQ) and must be postmarked by the due date.
• ACEI HQ compiles all proposals and forwards them
  to the research chair (currently Dr. Kelley).
• Research chair contacts committee members and
  prepares proposals for blind review by 3 separate
  readers (end of June).
• Proposals are reviewed by committee members using
  the proposal evaluation criteria (Aug. 15th).
• Proposal decisions forwarded to ACEI HQ (Sept.
  30th).

5
Proposal Evaluation CriteriaSee the last page of
the handout for the proposal evaluation form.

• How well does the Title introduce the study?
  This criterion is not formally rated, but it is
  considered in the overall evaluation process.
• How well does the Abstract describe the research
  study?
• Are the Research Questions adequately defined?
• Does the Rationale justify the purpose for the
  study and/or place it within the context of
  current theory and practice?

6
Evaluation Criteria cont.

• Is the Methodology clearly described and well
  matched to the research questions?
• Is the Analysis of Data adequately described, or
  a plan of analysis is presented, if the study is
  in progress.
• Are the Findings clearly identified?
• Are the Implications for future research,
  classroom practices, or policy discussed?

7
Proposal Decision Factors

• Each proposal is evaluated on 7 elements (the
  Title is not rated) using a 5-point Likert scale.
  Thus a total of 35 points is available for each
  review.
• The vast majority of proposals accepted score at
  least 20 or higher.
• Reviewers recommend the appropriate presentation
  format when the author fails to do so.
• Reviewer comments are forwarded to the primary
  author of the proposal prior to the ACEI
  conference.

8
Proposal Decision Factors cont.

• The number of papers accepted is determined by
  the size of the conference.
• The proposals originality, relationship to the
  conference theme, and quality also impact
  decisions.
• Finally, we seek to achieve appropriate
  distribution of age levels addressed,
  professional and geographic distribution of
  participants, and involvement of minorities.

9
Important Factors to Consider

• Prepare the abstract carefully. Rejected
  proposals often have confusing abstracts that
  dont match the body of the paper.
• Provide some context for your research. Clearly
  state your research questions and indicate why
  they are of importance. A direct link to
  previous research is helpful.
• Make sure that the methodology you use is
  appropriate for the research questions youve
  identified. Inappropriate methodology often
  results in the rejection of the proposal.

10
Factors to Consider cont.

• In the methodology section, carefully describe
  the sample characteristics, the measures employed
  in the study, and the relevant procedures.
  Remember, the proposal must make sense to the
  reviewers.
• If your research is in progress make sure that
  you state this and provide a brief timeline for
  completion.
• The next few slides were developed from J.
  Fraenkel N. Wallen (1996), How to design and
  evaluate research in education (3rd Ed.). New
  York McGraw-Hill, Inc., p. 442.

11
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

• Quantitative Methods
• Preferences for precise hypotheses and
  definitions stated at the outset.
• Data reduced to numerical scores.
• Major focus on assessing and improving
  reliability of scores obtained from instruments.
• Assessment of validity with reliance on
  statistical indices.

• Qualitative Methods
• Preference for hypotheses and definitions that
  emerge as study develops.
• Data are typically narrative descriptions.
• Reliability of inferences is often assumed to be
  adequate.
• Validity is assessed through cross-checking
  sources of information (triangulation).

12
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

• Quantitative Methods
• Preference for random techniques for obtaining
  meaningful samples.
• Preference for precise descriptions of
  procedures.
• Preference for design or statistical control of
  extraneous variables.
• Preference for specific design control for
  procedural bias (procedural and measurement
  integrity checks).

• Qualitative Methods
• Preference for expert informant (purposive)
  sample.
• Preference for narrative/literary descriptions of
  procedures.
• Preference for logical analysis in controlling or
  accounting for extraneous variables.
• Primary reliance on researcher to deal with
  procedural bias (yet, integrity checks are still
  critical).

13
Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

• Quantitative Methods
• Preference for statistical summary of results.
• Preference for breaking down of complex phenomena
  into specific parts for analysis.
• Willingness to manipulate aspects, situations, or
  conditions in studying complex phenomena.

• Qualitative Methods
• Preference for narrative summary of results.
• Preference for holistic description of complex
  phenomena.
• Unwillingness to tamper with naturally occurring
  phenomena.

14
Presentation Features

• If accepted for a Research Forum Session, then
  you will have approximately 15 minutes to
  present.
• Use visuals to accentuate the main components of
  the paper and consider the following timeframe
• In 2 minutes highlight the purpose and the
  research questions.
• In 1-2 minutes establish the context and purpose
  of the research.
• In 2 minutes highlight the methodology used,
  including the key measures and data collection
  procedures.

15
Presentation Features cont.

• In roughly 2 minutes report the statistical
  procedures or qualitative processes used to
  identify significant patterns or findings.
• Within 2-3 minutes discuss the findings and
  implications of the research.
• This will allow for roughly 5 minutes or so for
  questions from the audience. Bring at least 25
  copies of your completed paper for distribution.
  
• Remember, whenever using visuals, increase the
  font size so that participants in the back of the
  room can read the material.
• Finally, practice your presentation ahead of time.

16
Presentation Features cont.

• If selected for the Highlighted session, there
  will be 30 minutes for each presentation. This
  expanded format will allow for a more in-depth
  presentation and review of the findings, and an
  increase in audience questions and comments.
• Roundtables and Poster sessions are designed to
  be very interactive with considerable audience
  participation. They usually run 90 minutes in
  length.
• Poster session research papers are presented
  through the use of visual displays. Large
  tabletop tri-fold posters are available for
  presenters to mount large-print titles,
  descriptions, tables and graphs.
• Roundtable sessions allow for rich discussion and
  participation between authors and audience.
  Often papers are grouped by themes to facilitate
  the exchange of ideas and suggestions.

17
Questions

• What questions do you have of the panel or each
  other?